This doesn't make any sense.

FTR idc about differing opinions. Im more interested in how people taking your position justify it and what else you think is and isnt okay without consent (im just not really finding any consistency in most of the arguments when the logic is applied in a broader sense, beyond circumcision). As i said with arguments for veganism, if the audience takes the position that they do not care then there is nothing you can possibly say. However there is plenty to refute if they make any other claims and thats whats happening in this thread.

This convo is an excellent example of why we shouldn't judge people in the past by modern moral standards. Imagine how we'll be viewed when society advances beyond circumcision: it'd be wrong just as a question no less a debate.

Also ditto to what MLM said.

maybe, but there are quite a few studies claiming it doesn't affect sexual pleasure. although there are also quite a few saying that it does affect the sexual pleasure of the woman so i mean, i dunno. i think sexual pleasure is the least pertinent element of the issue, the bigger issue is cutting off part of the penis for no real reason.

Man Like Monkey, DownWithVowels, and Goofle.

Redefining melodrama on an hourly basis.

(jeez, these guys are really clinging to their foreskin)


Linda and I chose to have it done to Mike when he was only a couple of days old. I guess we could have also chose to have his tongue split. And his tonsils and appendix ripped out. Maybe even a kidney or lung while we were at it.

How ridiculous does that read?

Just because you have some useless skin hiding the tip of your johnson doesn't give you the right to get all up in arms with the over 80% of us who have beautiful dicks.

Yes, that's exactly what everyone is saying. **** you for being circumcised and circumcising your kid. You're a ****ty person because you think your dick is pretty. That's really what our side of the argument boils down to.

Chula taking it personally again.

btw why do you have to keep mentioning your cock? Reckon you've got a two incher tbh.

I think this is a good place to stop the debate. If you haven't changed your opinion on the matter yet, I can't imagine any new ways of arguing it will come up that don't involve psychological barriers which may result from individual actions.

Tonsillectomies and appendectomies are major surgery though. I'm pretty sure doctors don't want to put infants under anaesthesia for long periods of time unless absolutely necessary. I tried Googling it, but I just got a bunch of conflicting reports on how short-term anaesthesia may or may not damage the development of cognitive functions in children under three. Whatever the case, it's clearly not desirable to put very small children under anaesthesia unless necessary.

Anesthesia May Harm Children's Brains

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...it-in-infants/

https://www.asahq.org/about-asa/news...infants?page=4

Considering just how long it's probably been since she's seen it, I question how beautiful your wife would think your old man dick is now.

My stance on this is the same stance I have for any counter-movement. This is reactionary. Any time there is a movement in one direction (in this case, women's rights), there will inevitably be a counter movement filled with people who don't understand the reason there is a women's rights movement in the first place. Just because there is a movement for "x" doesn't mean "y" is being treated unfairly or that they are not getting their voices heard. This is the same as people countering "Black Lives Matter" with "White/All Lives Matter". Do all lives matter? Of course, but you are missing the point. Some lives feel they have mattered less and deserve some recognition and support. Do men's rights matter? Of course, but I don't think men have historically had a problem asserting their rights. I know there has been discussion about genital mutilation - is it a weird and archaic practice to circumcise men? Sure, but unlike female genital mutilation, a lot of people buy the "hygiene" argument and I'd say circumcision still has popular support in our society. Your opinion about whether or not it's wrong is one thing - you are entitled to your opinion. The difference between this and female genital mutilation seen throughout the world is parents have a choice about circumcision. If Goofle has a boy and decides not to circumcise him, he doesn't have to. If that same boy grows up and wants a circumcision, he can. The same can't be said for women in oppressive countries around the world.

Think hard enough about any group of people and you can come up with some ways that that group is "oppressed". But you are just scraping the bottom of the barrel to come up with problems. You better believe any problem men have will be solved fairly quickly if enough men agree it's a problem. Who would stop them? There are plenty of people who will get in the way of women's rights and at this point in history, there are PLENTY of people to stop them. THAT is the point.

This thread is huge and I didn't read through all 71 pages, so sorry if any of that is redundant.

I think the only overarching problem to males in society, isn't even much of a rights thing, but the toxicity of masculinity and male gender norms.

Masculinity is no more toxic than femininity. Enforced masculinity is the problem, just like enforced femininity. Another thing that is toxic is demonizing masculinity, cause where the **** does that leave masculine men? A shotgun in the mouth?

Nah, you're just bitter cause they beat you up in high school. And rightfully so probably.

Only if they impose their beliefs on the rest of us, which is why it's a toxic mindset in the first place.

And of course I believe the same for femininity, just the issue on hand is why MRA is mostly bull****.

I don't like when someone posts a YT video as an argument. But I'm going to because Dan Olsen is excellent at this:


Toxic masculinity is not a judgment on manhood, masculine attributes, etc. The video essay is fantastic and as someone who hasn't watched Fight Club since high school, I realize I had the conception of the film ass-backwards.

Well that's kind of the problem with your idea. When you tell men they shouldn't act like what they see as how men should act, while the other half of society is telling them they can't cry, let a woman pay for dinner, or let someone call them a ***got without throwing down, and nobody's trying to meet anyone in the middle... well how the **** do you expect men to sympathize with your ideals? They're either the enemy or not real men. So might as well just stick with the easier one that doesn't cause friction with the people in your social circles.

Just because a guy has testosterone doesn't mean he's an MRA.

I watched a little bit of the video, and might finish it in a bit, but I just wanted to say that it sounds like I agree with it. Obviously there are societal influences on masculinity (and femininity) that are negative, but I think certain segments of people criticizing masculinity, men, the patriarchy, or whatever, are also demonizing masculinity as a whole whether they realize it or not. That I do not agree with.

I'm totally open to change in the concept of masculinity, but not a one-sided castigation of the entire concept that strips it of anything meaningful to men (and women too).

And as someone who read Fight Club as a mid-twenty-something, I seem to have interpreted it the same as the video. I don't know just how deep Chuck Palahniuk's philosophy was when he wrote it, but it's definitely first and foremost an expression of frustration with being a male in the 21st century that doesn't really try to tell you how you "should" act, so much as just expressing that frustration. Though I suspect it's even more about the author being gay and how that plays into his role as a male in society.

I wonder what all the cretins who watch the movie for the fight scenes would think if they knew the author was gay lol?

So feminine traits such as being demure, being supportive, and being subservient to men are positive? I mean the first two can be positive, but they most certainly can be negative. That "chest thumping" masculine aggression can obviously be negative as well when taken to the same extreme that leads women to letting their husband make every decision in the household, but in moderation it's also called motivation.

Everybody imposes their beliefs on everybody else. You have to expect that. Talk all this **** about how everybody needs to feel accepted and nobody should be judged for their beliefs but we all know we're going to give somebody **** if they like Nickleback.

I own a Nickelback album. I was young and dumb, but it is was it is. And I'd rather listen to it than a Pink Floyd album. Come at me, girly men.

fttftcfy

It's such a cherry picking example he's using.

Men are known for bravery, self reliance, support, confidence, etc. Knowing how to fix a car isn't a bad stereotype to fit into either.

And there are just as many bad female stereotypes like over sensitivity and helplessness. Spending 3 hours in front of the mirror to do your hair. Nagging.

Pros and cons on both sides.

I think society already benefited from women becoming more like men. Otherwise they wouldn't be in the workplace, or breadwinners in the household, or be doing any of the things that society told them they shouldn't do as women. It's just that most of these things are already becoming ingrained in society so that many people don't see them as "not womanly".

Cretin A: "My uncircumcised penis is much more sensitive than a circumcised one."

Cretin B: "NO! My circumcised penis is much more sensitive than an uncircumcised one."

Two people who couldn't possibly have any idea about the reverse situation
going at it like a couple of overripe banana-dicks. At least Cretin B could've had
his foreskin removed when he was older (at a much greater risk) and could be speaking for
himself (but still not for others). Cretin A, meanwhile, hasn't a leg to stand on (unless it's a third leg).

Not really. Society would benefit from people who be themselves no matter how cliche or different they are. You're trying to force an anti-masculine rhetoric that is just as toxic as the opposing side.

Batlord has artists he likes others hate. He gets **** for it. He doesn't change, he just proudly shows his affection for said artists even more.

Ki has artists he likes others hate. He gets **** for it. He cries about it then claims to be too afraid to post opinions because he doesn't want to be judged.

We should promote more fearless Batlords rather than force people to accept the Kis. And I feel like you guys are not only trying to force people to accept the Kis, but also demonizing them for not having the same artistic opinions.

I promote this post.

Why am I being brought into this? gtfo with that ****.

Cause you are the perfect counterpoint to my awesomeness, loser.

While i agree with your overall point, isn't it kind of like telling someone to be someone they're not when you say they should be like Batlord and not give a ****. Who Ki is is a guy who gives a ****.

I just don't really see the point in using me as an example. The overall analysis is completely off base. And if I sound butthurt, I'm not. Just surprised that I'm being used in an argument that doesn't hold any factual evidence to support the claim.

Making the assumption that I'm the polar opposite to Bat just shows how little you actually know.

.

You're both losers but you are on opposite sides of the loser spectrum.

underrated post, gg mate.

oh. ok good.

You guy's who still have your foreskins need to stop hating on dudes who have sexy dicks.

http://www.cultureify.com/wp-content...-Fisherman.jpg

Oh, and my own weiner? Check out my avatar. Nuff said.

As a circumcised dude, I say your circumcised dick is unethical and it makes you a bad person.

Every. Damn. Time. This isn't a sitcom.

ftfy

If it ain't broke - don't fix it.

It wasn't funny the first time, find a new meme mate.

Also someone give me a cookie for not abusing my mod powers to make Chula's img a broken link :D.

Hasn't anyone ever told you that two wrongs don't make a right?